Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ,
No. 15-3034
(D.C. No. 2:13-CR-20126-CM-1)
(D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, OBRIEN, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez appeals his conviction on conspiracy to
manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribute at least five
kilograms of cocaine. See 18 U.S.C. 2; 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II), 846. On appeal, the sole issue is whether the evidence
of guilt was sufficient. We conclude it was and affirm the conviction.
The Court has determined that oral argument would not materially
aid our consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.
R. 34.1(G). Thus, we have decided the appeal based on the briefs.
This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But our order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
1028-29 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d 672, 682
(10th Cir. 2005).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence
showed that both Mr. Bryant and Mr. Moore had bought large quantities of
cocaine from Mr. Rodriguez and sold that cocaine to others. This evidence
is sufficient to support the conviction. See Dewberry, 790 F.3d at 1029
(stating that a conviction may rest upon uncorroborated testimony of
coconspirators); Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 682 (same). But the government
also presented corroborating evidence, including testimony from other
conspirators, evidence from telephone records suggesting that
Mr. Rodriguez had supplied cocaine to Mr. Piper, and surveillance
evidence showing Mr. Rodriguezs familiarity with Mr. Pipers house.
Mr. Rodriguez suggests that his mere association with persons
convicted of participating in a drug conspiracy cannot support the
conviction. But the testimony of Mr. Bryant and Mr. Moore, if believed,
establishes more than mere association. See United States v. Cornelius, 696
F.3d 1307, 1318 (10th Cir. 2012) (The evidence that [defendant]
repeatedly sold cocaine to other drug distributors who in turn sold it to
others is sufficient to support a reasonable inference that conspiratorial
interdependence existed between [defendant] and other distributors in a
conspiracy.).
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge